Slashdot Mirror
Is Link About to Die?
An anonymous reader writes "Sometimes we know more than we think we know. An about.com article asks if we might already know what happens in The Twilight Princess. If we do, it's not going to be a happy ending. Based primarily on the introduction to The Wind Waker, and the fact that we now know Twilight Princess takes place between Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, it makes some pretty interesting claims about Link's future. Is Link about to die?" Miyamoto may have been hinting about this earlier this year.
No.
It's not like there's any real continuity of character here. I mean, there's no specific Link character who is in all of the games. I always interpreted Link to be a sort of genetic/time-less hero born again and again. It's basically implied that each one dies at some point after his game ends. So explicitly having him die in game wouldn't really matter that much, since we know there will be another one at some point. And honestly, I wouldn't be that upset if he died anyway. It's not like there's any personality there.
I mean, there are many different Links from each few games, but I don't think losing on Link will end the onslaught of Hyrulians popping out new Links.
I didn't want to know that Link dies before I played the game. I'd be happy to make the discovery on my own. So next time you want to post a spoiler in a story, at least use the [Read more...] function and give us some warning.
The Zelda games never had a strong connection between games. Each only alluded to each other with hints and details to excite the fanboys (of which I am). This article is taking a giant leap of faith to force the connection it tries to make.
TFA asks if "Link is about to FAIL". As in FAIL his mission.
He died dozens of times in the previous games I played with him. Of course he'll die in the next game. I'm not perfect you know, sheesh.
"Blue Link needs food badly?"
//remember, don't shoot potions!
"Blue Link, your life force is running out?"
Actually, in Zelda 64: Majora's Mask it was HEAVILY implied that it was a direct sequel to Zelda 64:OoT complete with the same Link. Rewatch the ending and imagine Zelda sends Link on a mission to find 'someone' and cue Zelda 64:MM. It fits in perfectly since history was changed yet Link still visits Zelda. And then theres the fact that Epona, the Gorons, Zoras and Dekus race all reappear.
Also, I think the correct way to interpret Miyamato-san's comments are that the next game in the series, presumably on the Revolution, will be different in gameplay, not story. Can I hear a "Hell Yea!" for a massively multiplayer Zelda?
I think you mean A Link is going to die. The games loosely exist along the same time line (though I have yet to see a LoZ with hover boards, foo), and each game is a different Link and different Zelda.
I think Zelda II on the NES even went through some thing about all the princesses being named Zelda because one was in a deep neverending sleep, or some such stuff.
In Wind Waker, we're told that the main character isn't even of the Link lineage. He has to search for pieces of his part of the Triforce, remember. The game even says that the hero had left the realm, (referring to Majora's Mask), forcing the Triforce Piece of Courage to split apart.
Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask supposedly have the same Link (Majora's Mask taking place a few years after Link defeats Ganon in OoT and is returned to kid form.)
The Oracle games are supposed to match up with another Zelda game as well, though I can't recall which one right now. The same may be true for Link's Awakening.
So, even if Link does die in the game (which would certainly be a change; whether it's appreciated or not has yet to be seen), it won't be the end of the Zelda franchise.
If he does die, I think we'd see it as more of a "selfless sacrifice" type of thing. Link struggles with the main enemy to subdue him while the supporting hero(ine) blasts him into the Dark World or whatever, but in the process Link is pulled in as well. This would actually be a nice set up to the next game (which is most likely on the Revolution,) where you once again have a non-lineage Link and you wind up having to release the real Link to defeat the evil.
He should've brought a fairy.
Does that mean at the end he finds a short, funny-hat wearing man donned in blue and white saying "I'm sorry, but our princess is in another castle!" ???
I'm not scared of anonymous cowards.
Nintendo is killing off his second more famous mascot/franchise just before his new console arrives, yeah right.
btw: Did anyone noticed theres a rumor the new zelda game is going to be revolution exclusive after all?
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
...if Nintendo has some grand story already laid out and each game is another episode a la Star Wars. If so, it seems that WW was Nintendo's Return of the Jedi, complete with a 'cartoonish' quality that infuriated some (but not all...I actually liked it).
That said, RotJ really was the *end* (yes, the books carried it on a bit further, but I mean that the principal elements of the story had ended) and WW also seems to signal an end; once you take the land away, can you really put it back again? And frankly, I'm actually pretty okay with the idea of the series "ending" in a rather dramatic and final way; I'd hate to see the series milked for all its worth and have nothing but mediocre Zelda games cluttering up my opinion of the series.
So if in TW Link bites it, then Nintendo will have done something truly amazing; brought a game franchise to a repectable end. That, theoretically, frees them up to come up with a whole *new* series, and a new set of adventures. Sure they can keep the Mario warhorse around for each console; there's no "story" there.
Frankly, I kinda wished they'd actually done one really big story, a la Shenmue, but that's just quibbling at this point.
..Mario dies in Mario128 after eating one too many gold coins...
You know, this is a question that could be asked in a *lot* of Slashdot stories...
Chris Mattern
...he's already dead and that's why they can't finish the damned game.
What if he turned out to actually do something worse than roll over and die? What if instead he allows himself to be corrupted, gathers the Triforce of Power and ressurects Ganondorf, paving the way for Ganondorf's conquest free from any hero's influence?
e .php?album=66&pos=11
If a hero appears every time darkness is about to rise up again, having that hero become that darkness would definitly put a kink in things, possibly enough to warrant a world flood?
I'll let you chew on those thoughts with a side of concept art to go with it... http://www.zhq2.com/coppermine/cpg132/displayimag
Demented But Determined.
If the lead character is going to die and the world be destroyed, it should either be at the beginning of the game or the outcome of losing the game. Otherwise, it might make a good story -- but what's the point of a game that you are guaranteed to lose?
I haven't played many console games lately, but I have an example from the Might and Magic series on the PC. Might and Magic is a role-playing series, and Heroes of Might and Magic is a turn-based strategy series. The Heroes series created a new setting, with its own creatures, nations, etc., which also became the setting for Might and Magic 6 and 7. Heroes 4 moved to a new world populated by refugees from an apocalyptic event very much like the consequences of losing MM7. (Or winning it if you were playing evil characters.) That was annoying itself in a "Hey, I won that!" sort of way. But a game that you can't win, even in the context of the game itself? That doesn't sound like there's much reward for playing it.
No, Wind Waker is really about Majora's Mask and (eventually) Twilight Princess. MM doesn't even take in Hyrule (and yes, this means no Zelda, no Triforce, no Ganon), so the intro to Wind Waker saying 'the hero left the land' (or something similiar) is true. And the Hero of Time not returning? Thats because he dies (according to this theory) and thus never returns home to 'save the day' again. Someone casts a 'flood the world' spell to stop Ganon from capturing the Master Sword, and fast forward several hundred/thousand years and you have Wind Waker. (Humanity survives and regrows, the Ruto race evolves into existance/appears in prominance due to superior mobility between islands, the Master Sword and the Triforce are lost due to the sheer depth of the water.)
Except Heroes 4 completely went against its own backstory by featuring the game in some super populated, unnaturally abundant world with empty castles and towns ready to be immediately settled. If the world from Heroes 4 was populated by refugees, why the hell are there bands of rogue dragons and swordsmen? How were the castles and towns built so quickly? When did all these mines and lumber yards be built? Why the hell am I fighting with other refugees when our combined total population would be less than 10% of the previous world's population? Last time I checked, refugees from Hurricane Katrina didn't slaughter and kill each other's ethnic groups in order to recieve aid first.
I don't think Link exists enough to die. Like Mario, he's really more an avatar of the player than a character, and his death is just a metahpor for the player failing. When Link dies, the screen goes black, because there's no game without us and Link is us. I always assumed that what they were hinting at in Wind Waker was that the Link from Ocarina of Time never returned to Hyrule after Majora's Mask.
...it's not like the Japanese don't know anything about happy endings.
It's just that Nintendo doesn't want you to know that they're Developing 'Super Link Cart' for the DS!
Dolemite
Save the World! Use a Quote!
Ok, so this is slightly unrelated...but wouldn't it be awesome if you got to play this epic 100+ hour long Zelda with a party, and turn-based combat? I know alot of the fanboys will call it sacrelige, but with FF12 announced as a real-time combat game, who knows? Anyway...here's a little mock up a made a few weeks ago ;)
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Quoth the article:
....
The premise of the article is that players are told at the start of Wind Waker that Hyrule was flooded when a hero failed to appear to prevent evil's return. The Gods, in order to cleanse the land of evil, flooded it, leading to the world found in Wind Waker.
A hero FAILED TO APPEAR. It's not that someone failed in their quest, the hero failed to even attempt it, because there was no hero. He didn't make an appearance!
So either A) This story is a re-writing of history which invalidates the entire plot of the Wind Waker, or B) a different story.
What if Link just chooses to fail because he realizes that fighting off evil and winning would be worse than flooding the world entirely. I remember the previews of Twlight Princess where Link is practically fighting an army on his horse (assumingly Epona). Perhaps he realizes it's just not worth it.
Perhaps there will be some slow dramatic death scene followed by a fairy popping out of a bottle ...
Just for the record- if you actually read the manuals...
The Link in NES Zelda 1 is the same as NES Zelda 2, just older by a few years.
The Link in SNES Zelda came centuries before the NES ones